Abolitionism and Welfare Reform: A Debate

Professor Gary Francione and Bruce Friedrich of Farm Sanctuary recently had a short, substantive exchange on abolitionism and welfare reform, consisting of two opening statements and a response to each. Below is my summary of the exchange. Obviously, nothing can be settled in a short debate, but I hope to highlight and sharpen the areas of disagreements between the two.

Francione’s Opening Statement

Differences between regulationists and abolitionists

A. Regulationists focus primarily on animal treatment. They generally support: (1) welfare reform, such as “enriched” cages for hens; (2) single-issue campaigns; and (3) the consumption of “happy” animal products. Moreover, regulationists promote veganism only as a way to reduce suffering, not as a moral baseline.

B. Abolitionists reject all animal use on moral grounds, and in addition to rejecting (1)-(3) above, they promote veganism as a moral imperative. Further, abolitionists reject regulationism for three practical reasons:

(ii). Welfare measures encourage continued animal use by making the public feel better about animal exploitation. This occurs when groups like PETA give praise and awards to McDonalds for improved animal treatment.

(iii). Single issue campaigns inaccurately characterize some forms of exploitation as worse than others. Example: Fur is not worse than leather or wool.

C. Abolitionists view animal advocacy as a zero-sum game. The more time and money spent on welfare reforms, the less can be spent on vegan/abolitionist education; advocates should focus only on the latter. Doing both sends contradictory and hopelessly confusing messages.

B(i) is false. For pregnant sows, there is a meaningful difference between gestation crates and group housing. Similarly, for chickens who have their throats slit while conscious, painless deaths are meaningfully better. Because reforms lessen animal suffering, when the only alternatives are more suffering or less, that alone justifies supporting them.

Egg-consumption declined in EU countries that independently banned battery cages. Moreover, according to the Journal of Agricultural Economics, media coverage of certain welfare campaigns have led to reduced consumption in all animal products.

You need to be a member of Animal Rights Zone to add comments!

I agree with Gary, each individual has the power to look within, decide for themselves if they want to continue supporting the exploitation of animals by dietary choices, clothing choices, cosmetic and cleaning choices, sporting choices, and so many other choices. All these choices add up to a demand that creates these hell hole conditions for animals. It all begins with one person. Forget the excuses and arguments, there is no argument, either abuse, use and hold animals with little compassion or don't.

Spencer, thank you for taking the time to provide a balanced and objective summary of the major points of this debate. I have to say that I find Francione's arguments unconvincing. He makes what are in fact speculative claims as if they were instead factual claims. What's worse, the facts as they stand do not support his speculations. I realize that many people are drawn to Francione's "no compromise" approach, as if the severity of one's position was evidence of its validity, but I find him routinely guilty of 'black vs. white' thinking in the service of a moral absolutism that seems untenable for anyone with a naturalistic world view.

Members

Events

Animal Rights Zone (ARZone) Disclaimer

Animal Rights Zone (ARZone) is an animal rights site. As such, it is the position of ARZone that it is only by ending completely the use of other animal as things can we fulfill our moral obligations to them.